Even a casual observer of recent geopolitical history can see the pattern of encirclement, neutralization, and domination that has characterized western policies over the past several decades. It is clear that the consolidation of power and the imposition of the global fascist New World Order is all but complete and that all remaining obstacles must be removed, one way or another.Beyond Money | Devoted to the liberation of money and credit, and the restoration of the commons
Like I've been saying.
But not all obstacles can be removed through military force. Did I miss the memo where the NWO believes it can win a nuclear war?
ReplyDeleteI think a multi-polar NWO would work just fine for the global elite. It has the bonus of offering continual crises in the form of proxy wars.
Yes, everything he says is more or less true...and yet..and yet..
ReplyDeleteGiven Russia's centuries long history as a brutal, repressive Imperialist power, they are certainly not 'the heroes' of this scenario they are attempting to make themselves out to be.
Very few are saying that Putin is the good guy in this. The assertion is to look at it from both sides instead of just through the propaganda that is rampant in the US media, which is putting forward what is essentially the neocon viewpoint and agenda.
ReplyDeleteThe reality of the situation is that eastern Ukraine hates Russia after having been in the USSR and wants to align with Europe. Western Ukraine is heavily Russian and aligned more with Russian culture.
What is happening now, as close as I can tell, is an extreme right-wing faction using popular hatred of Russia among nationalist Ukrainians to manipulate the West toward the neocon position. I regard that as a wild card.
Given the polarity, there is no good solution without partitioning the Ukraine and that's not a great solution either, but it is better than a civil war that could very well draw Russia and NATO into a face-off. A right-wing government in Kyiv is not above engineering this for its own purposes.
These kinds of polarities are going to more common in the process of creating a pluralistic global society/humanity. It will likely take at least a century to get beyond the tribalism and parochialism of nationalism, religious differences, ethnic differences, and so forth on the way to a radically different world demographic. We are seeing it playing out in the US for instance.
See Intersectionality.
I also think that pushing NATO to Russia's borders is also a very bad strategy that greatly increases the possibility of nuclear war. Look at how the US reacted to the perceived threat during the Cuban missile crisis. Tightly encircling Russia invites a repeat.
Same with North Korea. Bad as that regime is, China has let it be known that it regards NK as a buffer zone and will not let the West encroach on its border.
C'mon. New World Order conspiracy-mongering now?
ReplyDeleteThis is all just classic power politics. Yes, since the end of the Cold War, many in the west have sought to bring the former Soviet republics in Russia's "near abroad" into the EU and Nato. Yes, there are powerful financial interests that are struggling for control of Russian assets. Yes, Russia has attempted to resist all this and to preserve some remnant of its former power and interests in the same region. There is no need to melodramatize this struggle as anything other than a continuation of centuries of European history into a new era of power relationships.
I'm not saying there is not skulduggery and covert action at work on both sides. There always is. But that "fascist New World Order" business is for the comic books.
"C'mon. New World Order conspiracy-mongering now?"
ReplyDeleteDan probably half the country believes in all that stuff... its a big part of the problem we face imo.
These people think all of this is some sort of "conspiracy" or something. rsp,
I differentiate it from the conspiracy theory that goes by the same name. The conspiracy theorists didn't originate the name either. "New World Order" has a considerable history, including politically and many nuances.
ReplyDeleteWoodrow Wilson used it in this Fourteen Points concerning the founding of the League of Nations. H. G. Wells published a book entitled The New World Order in 1940. G. W. H Bush and Gorbachev used it for the promise of cooperation after the Cold War. "Henry Kissinger stated in 1994, 'The New World Order cannot happen without U.S. participation, as we are the most significant single component. Yes, there will be a New World Order, and it will force the United States to change its perceptions.'[39] " "...Tony Blair stated on November 13, 2000 in his Mansion House Speech that 'There is a new world order like it or not'.[40] He used the term in 2001,[41] November 12, 2001[42] and 2002.[43] On January 7, 2003 he stated that '... the call was for a new world order. But a new order presumes a new consensus. It presumes a shared agenda and a global partnership to do it.'[44]
Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on December 17, 2001, stated that "This is not the first time the world has faced this question – so fundamental and far-reaching. In the 1940s, after the greatest of wars, visionaries in America and elsewhere looked ahead to a new world and – in their day and for their times – built a new world order."[45]
"[Gordon] Brown also called for a 'new world order' in a 2008 speech in New Delhi, to reflect the rise of Asia and growing concerns over global warming and finance. Brown said the new world order should incorporate a better representation of 'the biggest shift in the balance of economic power in the world in two centuries.' He then went on, 'To succeed now, the post-war rules of the game and the post-war international institutions – fit for the Cold War and a world of just 50 states – must be radically reformed to fit our world of globalisation.'[46] He also called for the revamping of post-war global institutions including the World Bank, G8 and International Monetary Fund. Other elements of Brown's formulation include spending £100 million a year on setting up a rapid reaction force to intervene in failed states.[47][48] He has also used the term on the January 14, 2007,[49] March 12, 2007,[50] May 15, 2007,[51] June 20, 2007,[52] April 15, 2008,[53] and on the April 18, 2008,[54] Brown also used the term in his recent speech at the G20 Summit in London on April 2, 2009.[55]
continued
continuation
ReplyDeleteIranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called for a new world order based on new ideas, saying the era of tyranny has come to a dead-end. In an exclusive interview with Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Ahmadinejad noted that it is time to propose new ideologies for running the world.[56]
Interestingly it was also used by Nicholas Roerich, a Russian painter and mystic, who founded Agni Yoga. U. S. Vice-President Henry Wallace who was something of a disciple of Roerich picked it up and introduced it to US politics, conflating it with the inscription on the Great Seal of the US, Novus Ordem Seculorum ("a new order of ages") and relating it to what we now call "American exceptionalism." See Maze, John and Graham White, Henry A. Wallace: His Search for a New World Order. University of North Carolina Press. 1995.
The essence of the concept wrt to financial capitalism is summarized by Carroll Quigley:
"The powers of financial capitalism had (a) far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank... sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) | Professor of History at Georgetown University, member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), mentor to Bill Clinton, in Tragedy and Hope, 1966., ch. 20
Tom, yes "new world order" is a frequently used term, because every time some established world order is upset, someone calls for a new one. But Greco is plugging into the recent New World Order conspiracy rap.
ReplyDeleteIt's amazing. I'm 54 now, and have seen a lot of political changes, idea and conflicts, and I have yet to see one that American isolationist, bunker-hugging yahoos, indulging the paranoid style as always, hasn't declared to be "fascist".
The NWO conspiracy theory is about the UN and a communist take over the world through a conspiracy. This is one of the meanings of Obama as a socialist and communist. It's a big deal in come areas of the US. Their have been billboards all over the South and parts of the West about this for decades.
ReplyDeleteNo one who understand the NWO conspiracy theory that has been virulent in the US for a long time is going to be confused about this. Financial capitalism is very clearly not about a communist plot for world domination.